Manne's Generation: White Nation Responses to the Stolen Generation ReportKay Schaffer
© all rights reserved
To facilitate downloading,
this paper has been divided into
parts I & II
Robert Manne's In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right (Manne 2001) provided the nation with an effective antidote to counter the bitter stream of vitriol that followed the release of the Bringing Them Home report (Wilson 1997). Particularly welcome aspects of Manne's essay include his incisive and sustained rebuttal of some of the more bizarre claims made by the nation's outspoken conservatives in the wake of the Report's release; his reasoned objections to their faulty, dismissive and grossly insensitive arguments; his detailing of the United Nations convention on genocide that called forth the charge of genocide made against the Australian nation in the Report; his clarifications concerning the brief given the National Inquiry and the paucity of funds committed to its task; his necessary corrective to some of the estimates made by earlier researchers into the number of children involved; and his attempts to analyse the various motivations of the Report's opponents as symptomatic of a broader national process of shutting down.
I have no intention of diminishing the value and necessity of Manne's considered response. Nonetheless, I believe that there are dimensions of the essay that may have had several unintended effects. They, too, deserve better scrutiny. Here, I will focus on three elements that may have contributed indirectly to a containment of the debate on reconciliation one Manne was intent to move forward. The first is the voice, or mode of address, he adopts for the essay; the second is his necessary focus on history, facticity and the events of the past; and the third is the metaphoric effect of his reiteration of the nation's "unspeakable trauma," "our legacy of unutterable shame". I investigate these dimensions of In Denial not to diminish its considerable import but to address the processes of healing that are still stalled and to return to the import of the Stolen Generation testimonies themselves.
I. Manne's mode of address
To whom does Manne address his treatise? What subject-object categories are implicit in his address? One might characterise his audience, the 'subjects' of his discourse, as a broad-based readership of (white) Australians, rationally constituted, invested with national identity, interested in a rational debate, and uneasy with the impassioned rhetoric to which he occasionally turns. The object of his scrutiny (and scorn) is the backlash of conservatives, his former mates, associated with the journal Quadrant, right-leaning journalists, members of right wing "think tanks", and members of the Howard liberal government.They are his opponents, conservative speakers whose remarks he meets head-on, in an intersubjective dialogue: two sides of an "us", a national "we", in an "us and them" debate.
The contested evidence available to both the subjects of his address and the objects of his scorn, that feeds the debate between left and right involves the lives of indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians, and specifically the victims of the assimilationist policies of the past, are the "them", in a reductive but enduring configuration of the nation and its others. What is at stake is the accuracy of their testimonies given to the Inquiry and taken up in the Bringing Them Home report and the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry based on that testimony. The very rhetorical nature of debate pits one set of opponents against another (white Australians who position themselves on the right and the left), rendering those whose lives, histories, and identities are at stake (indigenous Australians) in the category of otherness, as 'evidence'.
To be sure, Manne chastises those who deny the important role played by Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson as co-chair of the Inquiry (71). In so doing, however, he misses an important opportunity to investigate the status of indigenous voices and the ways in which it is possible for them to take on legitimacy in the public sphere. It is not so much that Dodson "was assumed [by right wing critics] irrelevant to its work and outcome" (71) but that his relevance, his authority, was constituted by his position within a largely white forum. And it is one largely eluded in the address of the Report itself, the carriage of which rests with Sir Ron Wilson.
Who is the "we" implicated in this silencing, those of us imagined as representing the whole nation in Manne's address? If we can talk about the nation as community in terms of familial metaphors, as does Manne in his essay, what racial identities constitute this ancestral nation? Is "our legacy of unspeakable shame" that which Nietzsche might call, and Ghassan Hage examines well (Hage 1998) a legacy of 'the tribe', the ancestral white nation of Australia that comes to stand in for the whole (Nietzsche 1967)? How are different generations of 'new' Australians positioned in the debate? In other words, how does the nature of the debate itself constitute the nation's hegemonic boundaries and maintain certain categories of inclusion and exclusion?
Heterogeneous national subjects evoke varied responses to the Stolen Generation issue for the nation. On one side of the "us" and "them" divide stand an array of nationally constituted subjects claiming various identities-- as 6th generation descendants from convicts, settlers and colonial administrators, generations of silenced Afghan and Chinese Australians, Jewish survivors of the holocaust, pre-and post war migrants from Eastern Europe, post-Vietnam immigrants and refugees from Asia and migrants from other locations, differently constituted not only as national subjects but also as mothers and daughters and sons . . . . We all have alternative histories, different national and personal investments, and differently constituted subject positions within the nation. On the other side of the us and them divide stand Indigenous Australians. Nor are they a homogeneous group. They include those directly and indirectly affected by assimilationist practices, raised in remote, rural and urban communities, and successive generations of their descendants. Although not homogeneous, all were and continue to be implicated, on the basis of their racial status, as victims of the government's policies and practices of oppression. Yet the major players in the national debate, even those who contest the findings of the Report and those who contest the contesters, are able to maintain a reductionistic "us" and "them" division between non-indigenous and indigenous Australians. The denial of a specificity for differently positioned national subjects remains one of the unspoken aspects of the management of the larger national debate.
II. The focus on history, facticity and the events of the past
Conservative responses that prompted Manne's rebuttals worried about how the Report might taint the nation's history. Such a discourse of national shaming called for a rebuttal trained on issues of "facticity" of the Report and its reliability as history how many children were taken, how reliable is the evidence of memory, were the children stolen or rescued? what Manne labels a "nit-picking" at the edges. Although opponents engaged in obfuscation rather than a search for clarity, attention to these details is important, for the Report did, indeed, call for a reassessment of the nation's history. Much of the value of In Denial, as mentioned at the outset, lies in Manne's careful reassessments of how the testimonies challenge the nation's imagined past.
Nonetheless, the nervous backward glances of the conservatives successfully deferred the processes of reconciliation by engaging in extraneous critiques, by failing to acknowledge the ongoing pain and suffering of indigenous people in the present, and by disallowing a process of healing that might be projected into the future. As Walter Benjamin reminds us, it is at times of danger when the selective and cumulative memory of a nation, as embodied in its historiography, require a reinvestment in the imagined historical past (Benjamin 1969, p. 255). The High Court Mabo decision of 1992 recognised that the nation was founded on the legal fiction of terra nullius. Beyond Mabo, there has been a widespread acceptance of the fictions of history, and that histories are constructed inside relations of power, they are not entities outside of representations. The Quadrant line, with its insistence on historical accuracy, is yet another mode of shoring up the remnants of belief and reinvesting, in Benjamin's terms, in an imagined and unified historical past.
III. Metaphors of the unspeakable, the unutterable shame
Manne ends his essay with a phrase that sums up his appraisal of what the Stolen Generations issue means to Australia. His final phrase, borrowed from Sir William Deane, refers to "our legacy of unutterable shame" (p. 105). It echoes a point he had made two pages earlier that "Aborigines were the victims of an unspeakable crime" (p. 103). Unutterable shame unspeakable crime. Here the rhetoric invokes the metaphor of speech, or a secret at the heart of the nation that can not be spoken, doubled by an insistence on shamed nation struck dumb by "our" legacy of the past.
These phrases, coming at the end of a treatise that rails against those who would deny this legacy, also raises questions about who is speaking and who is addressed. Although there are, to be sure, gaps and silences in the testimonies of Stolen Generation victims, lapses in the memory and recall of experiences too traumatic or dangerous to tell, it is simply not the case that crimes against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been unspoken not by indigenous people themselves nor by witnesses to their abuse. There is now at least a thirty-year archive of published Aboriginal life narratives and a considerable accumulation of damning historical evidence of a frontier history of violence and resistance, sometimes by non-indigenous protesters, as well as the more recent testimonies of victims contained within the Stolen Generation accounts.
These stories are not new. Those who spoke them, albeit painfully and most often reluctantly, are not mute. Until very recently, however, their testimony had no efficacy in the public domain, no legitimacy within official discourses of nation, few ears willing to listen.
I suspect, however, that the silence that marks the trauma to the nation that accompanied the release of Bringing Them Home has less to do with the testimonies of the victims, or even the 'facts' of history, and more to do with what lies beyond the words themselves: what "we", on an ontological level of national selfhood, cannot afford to know, to see, to hear or to speak of. We turn away, uncomprehending, not from the words but from the recognition they threaten to provoke of a nation and its people, a recognition so remote from the myths of nation that fuel our perceptions of ourselves as Australian so as to be unrecognisable. As Judith Herman says "The ordinary response to atrocities is to banish them from consciousness. Certain violations of the social contract are too terrible to utter aloud. This is the meaning of the word unspeakable." (Herman 1996, p.4).
The forced separation of children from their mothers was a violation of the social contract, a basic denial of human rights. And every separation had a witness who saw the pain and remained or were effectively rendered silent. Perhaps this is why certain elements of the nation, the 'core' who constitute the national 'we', cannot afford to acknowledge the atrocities committed in the past or to recognise the lasting scars of that abuse on the lives of its victims. 'We' cannot, because to do so would deliver an ontological blow to our nationally-affiliated selves, a severing of 'our' humanity, a taking responsibility for an unimaginable breach in the conduct of human ethics. And so we engage in an active, willed forgetting.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) hearings into the forced removal of indigenous children from their families enabled the voices of indigenous Australians to enter the public domain. There, they initiated the possibility of a dialogue between tellers and listeners, between those previously silenced and rendered to the margins of the Australian nation and an audience of non-indigenous Australians who occupy a number of more dominant, but by no means unified, positions within it. The responses to the Report, however, whether taken up by Manne or the national media, manage the debate and regulate the nation's voices in monologic ways. Despite the often-agonising attention to Stolen Generation testimonies by Manne, and the public reflections on national shame and guilt that have appeared in the wake of the Report, I wonder if 'we' (non-indigenous Australians) really have been/are/can be in dialogue with indigenous Australians? Or is this present controversy yet another example of some prominent and influential white Australians talking to and among themselves in the name of a national debate in a way that maintains the exclusion of the nation's others?
Click here to continue with Part II of this essay.
Kay Schaffer, Associate Professor, Department of Social Inquiry, Adelaide University. Her publications include: Women and the Bush (Cambridge, 1988), In the Wake of First Contact: The Eliza Fraser Stories (Cambridge, 1996), co-edited: Constructions of Colonialism: Perspectives on Mrs. Fraser's Shipwreck (Cassell, 1998), Indigenous Australian Voices: A Reader (Rutgers, 1998), and The Olympics at the Millenium: Power, Politics and the Games (Rutgers, 2000). This essay was funded by the Literature Fund of the Australia Council.
ReferencesIn Australian Humanities Review,see also
Benjamin, W. (1969). Illuminations. New York, Schocken Books.
Derrida, J. (1994). Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. New York, Routledge.
Gilbert, K., Ed. (1988). Inside Black Australia: An Anthology of Aboriginal Poetry. Ringwood, Penguin Books.
Hage, G. (1998). White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society. Sydney, Pluto Press.
Herman, J. L. (1996). Crime and Memory. Trauma and Self. C. B. Stoozier and M. Flynn. Lanham, Maryland, Rowman and Littlefield: 3-17.
Lucashenko, M. (2001). "More Migaloo Words?: Three Responses to Robert Manne's 'In Denial'." Overland 163(Win): 15-16.
Manne, R. (2001). "In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right." The Australian Quarterly Essay 1(1): 1-113.
National Tribal Council (1969). ""Cultural Pluralism: Policy Manifesto of the National Tribal Council"." Origin 3(1): 13.
Nietzsche, F. (1967). "Guilt", "Bad Conscience", and the Like. On the Genealogy of Morals. New York, Random House: 95-126.
Wilson, S. R. (1997). Bringing them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Canberra, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: 689.
- Fiona Paisley's Race and Remembrance: Contesting Aboriginal Child Removal in the Inter-War Years
- Henry Reynolds's After Mabo, What About Aboriginal Sovereignty? and The Stolen Children Their Stories: an afterword
- John Frow's A Politics of Stolen Time
- Carmel Bird's The Stolen Children Their Stories
- Sue Stanton's Time for Truth: Speaking the Unspeakable Genocide and Apartheid in the 'Lucky' Country
- Re-membering and taking up an ethics of listening: a response to loss and the maternal in "the stolen children" by Brigitta Olubas and Lisa Greenwell
- Those two little words by Beth Spencer
- and Cracking Up by Hannah Fink
http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/copyright.html for copyright notice.